Rahm Emanuel Is a Union-buster. So Why Are Chicago Unions Backing Him?

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

‘Nothing would make us happier than to take Rahm out. But ... if we’re going to take a shot at the king, we’ve got to kill him.’

When Rahm Emanuel strode into office as mayor of Chicago in 2011, one of his first targets was the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). He sought and obtained state legislation limiting the right of Chicago teachers to strike. But he lost doubly in the fall of 2012: The CTU successfully mobilized its members to go on strike, then won both a good contract and the battle for public support. Yet Emanuel still closed 49 public schools and expanded charter schools the following spring. Meanwhile, other public employee unions moved into the mayor’s crosshairs as he drastically cut and privatized city jobs and services, often with help from a Democratic governor and state legislature.

Emanuel stands for re-election February 24 in a non-partisan primary against four challengers (and if no one wins 50 percent of the vote plus one, there will be a run-off between the top two on April 7). Polls suggest Chicagoans are not satisfied with their mayor, but most observers give him the odds because of his financial advantage—as of early 2015, he had a $11 million war chest, 10 times that of any opponent.

In theory, labor could be an important part of these calculations. Chicago is a more unionized city than most, and union endorsements typically come with credibility, money and an army of campaign workers. But despite Emanuel’s anti-union record, unions are divided about how to deal with “Mayor 1%,” as Kari Lydersen’s biography of Emanuel is titled.

Emanuel earned that sobriquet not only for the millions he made working for an investment bank and his gift for convincing the rich to empty their pocketbooks for the Democratic Party, but also his disdain for unions. “Fuck the UAW,” he infamously said when serving as Obama’s chief of staff during the auto bailout. He also largely shares the worldview of the financial and corporate elite: Give the hard back of the free-market hand to Jane and Joe Sixpack, the soft palm of friendly government to needy businesses.

Emanuel’s leading—but still longshot— opponent is his opposite on most counts. Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a former alderman and state senator, has been a member of three different unions and strongly supports labor.

“My roots are with working-class people,” Garcia said in an interview with In These Times. “I understand what working-class families need. … Chicago would be better served by a mayor who has that background and would work with unions.” He says that Emanuel’s attempts “to break the CTU” were “heartless” and “spiteful.” Those are harsh words from a man who comes off as modest, self-effacing and “genuine”— as Amalgamated Transit Union Local 308 President Robert Kelly said while endorsing him. Garcia supports the Fight for 15, wants to strengthen neighborhoods and their infrastructure and wants to replace the mayoral appointment of school board members with a board elected by Chicagoans (a major demand of the CTU).

You might imagine that unions would rally behind a seemingly pro-labor challenger to an incumbent with an anti-union record. But as of early January, Chicago’s unions were divided between Garcia, Emanuel and neutrality for a variety of reasons—some peculiar to Chicago, others typical of the U.S. labor movement’s electoral strategy.

Broad shoulder unions

Chicago’s unions, riven with thuggish political squabbles in the late 19th century, grew more unified, progressive and powerful in the first part of the 20th. They often supported labor and socialist party candidates and welcomed organizers like William Z. Foster, a Communist Party leader who led ambitious unionization campaigns in the Chicago meat-packing and steel industries.

But during the reign of Mayor Richard J. Daley from 1955 to 1976, the Chicago Federation of Labor (CFL) was dominated by conservative unions such as the building trades, who were closely tied to the Democratic machine. Unions became more concerned with transactions than with societal transformation. A mayor could win much of labor’s support simply by pointing to the cranes on the skyline and noting the number of jobs involved. But as public employees organized, they formed a large new bloc of union workers with a big, but different, stake in local politics. For professionals like teachers and nurses, city policies affect not only the number of their jobs but also the character of their work and the lives of the people they serve.

Too often, a narrow perspective—looking only at jobs, a single policy decision or a calculation about who is likely to win—backfires for labor. Case in point: Rahm Emanuel.

When Emanuel ran for Congress from Chicago in 2002, he was up against Nancy Kaszak, an experienced, progressive, pro-labor state legislator who opposed the anti-worker NAFTA trade deal. Emanuel, on the other hand, had helped Bill Clinton ram NAFTA through Congress the decade before. Most of the city’s labor movement backed Emanuel, however. As the state AFL-CIO’s political director Bill Looby said at the time, “She had the good labor record, but he had the record of knowing his way around Washington.” Labor helped create its own latter-day nemesis. When Emanuel ran for mayor in 2011, labor split its support among Emanuel and other candidates, but the CFL remained neutral.

As the 2015 election drew near, the prospects for a strong challenger to Emanuel dimmed. U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., headed off to prison for misusing campaign funds. Toni Preckwinkle, the cautious, moderately progressive and respected African-American president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, resisted the many suitors trying to draw her into the race. White progressive alderman Bob Fioretti threw his hat in the ring. But the modest excitement around Fioretti seems to be generated mainly by his status as not-Rahm.

There was one potential candidate with the moxie and the understanding of public policy issues to take on the mayor: CTU President Karen Lewis. In an August Chicago Tribune poll, voters chose the strong-willed, sharp-witted and community-oriented union leader over Emanuel 43 to 39 percent. Members of union households backed Lewis 56 to 31 percent—a signal to union leaders who were listening.

On the verge of declaring her candidacy in October, Lewis suddenly fell ill with a brain tumor and withdrew from the race. With CTU encouragement, Garcia announced his candidacy. He could quickly call on an experienced group of progressives from his time as an aldermanic supporter of previous Chicago mayor Harold Washington, but his has not been a household name in Chicago politics.

Still, he has a strong backer in the intensely political CTU, which contributed $52,600 to his campaign, while its national office, the American Federation of Teachers, gave $250,000. Garcia won financial and political support from another large local in late December. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Health Care Illinois Indiana (HCII) backed Garcia with a $250,000 contribution, despite a decision by the SEIU Illinois State Council to remain neutral. Two smaller unions, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 308 and the United Electrical Workers Western Region, also endorsed Garcia.

Will the rest of Chicago labor jump on the bandwagon? “[CFL President] Jorge [Ramirez] wants a strong, independent labor movement, but he doesn’t see taking on Rahm as the way to do it,” says one public sector union political organizer. “Historically, Chicago has been a strong union town. So most of the unions feel comfortable where they are. Why should they be bold? ‘We’ve got jobs. Our kids have jobs. Why should we have strong progressive democratic unionism?’ ” The CFL made no endorsement in the mayoral election. On top of that, the influence of the building trades unions, with its largely white and suburban membership, makes Chicago labor more conservative, especially about the role of government, and less in tune with communities of color.

Emanuel is likely to pick up support from most of the Teamsters, who supported him last election; most of the building trades, who appreciate the city’s new tall buildings; and ostensibly the police and fire unions, who seem fairly satisfied with their new contracts (with the exception of the police sergeants’ union, which endorsed Fioretti). The usually progressive Local 1 of UNITE HERE, the hotel and restaurant workers union, which joined the fight against Emanuel’s school closures, donated $25,000 to Emanuel, who attended a union town hall meeting in December 2013, leaving the union with the impression it will be an integral part of his plans to promote tourism and the hotel industry.

A number of unions remained neutral or publicly undeclared as of early January: the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Illinois Nurses Association and National Nurses United, industrial unions (steel, auto and others), and SEIU Local 1 (building services).

But some may jump into the race if Garcia’s campaign takes off. Sources familiar with the thinking of SEIU Local 1’s leaders say there was enthusiasm for Preckwinkle and Lewis, but less for Garcia—even though they see him as a friend—because he entered the race so late that his campaign does not seem viable. “If Chuy were even 30 percent viable, we’d be with him,” one source said. “Nothing would make us happier than to take Rahm out. But we’re not tilting at windmills. If we’re going to take a shot at the king, we’ve got to kill him.”

AFSCME is backing five members of the city council’s progressive caucus, as well as one socialist candidate, Jorge Mujica, but will remain neutral in the mayoral race, says spokesperson Anders Lindall, who notes that the union has not endorsed a mayoral candidate since Harold Washington. It’s not hard to see AFSCME’s dilemma: On the one hand, Emanuel has cut city services and jobs, as well as workers’ pensions, and his hostility to working cooperatively with employees and their unions sharpens their grievances. On the other, Garcia’s record as a Cook County commissioner, where he supported Toni Preckwinkle while she carried out cuts to county jobs and proposed cuts to county pensions, makes it hard for some municipal unionists to embrace him.

Nearly everyone in the labor movement would agree that unity among unions is good. But in practice, unions tend to support unity only if everyone agrees with the correct—that is, their—view. Principles are noble, but, leaders ask, aren’t unions here to protect their members’ interests. And what’s more important than a job?

So the debate goes on, and will continue with variations. But the labor movement would benefit from the kind of broad vision that made the early-20th-century CFL, under the leadership of progressive unionist John Fitzpatrick, the model for American unionism. That vision of a society with workers democratically in control helped the CFL to organize half the city’s workforce by 1910, to pioneer unionization of occupations from janitors to school teachers and to promote progressive political ideas.

As much as possible, unions need an open, democratic discussion with other unions and their members about such long-range political goals, whether transactional or transformational— not deals cut in back rooms with just a few union leaders or representatives of the boss (both still too common in union affairs). The discussion needs to transcend fault lines exploited by employers and anti-worker politicians, such as between private sector unions (especially the building trades) and public sector unions—while there are still unions and pro-union politicians to make such a debate meaningful. And debate about the direction of the city—and country—needs to engage the labor movement with community and progressive groups in year-round efforts to build power that go beyond election-time door-knocking.

With encouragement from national AFL-CIO leaders, that transformation is beginning to happen in many places around the country. In Chicago, the CTU has taken the lead.

“The problem with labor generally is that it’s way too timid politically,” says Jesse Sharkey, acting president of the CTU. “Democrats and Republicans don’t represent our interests, and we need a political organization of our own.” To this end, the CTU has joined with SEIU’s HCII local and the community groups Action Now and Grassroots Illinois Action to form United Working Families, an independent political organization that will not just endorse candidates at election time but also work year-round to hold elected leaders accountable. Similarly, National Nurses United has allied with the People’s Lobby, a Chicago-based membership organization, to form Reclaim Chicago, which is currently working on aldermanic races.

A new wave of discontent from black, Latino and white working-class neighborhoods may be emerging to replace the old anti-machine, middle-class reform politics of decades past. This new movement may not be strong enough to oust Rahm Emanuel this year, but some day—contra the old adage by the famously corrupt Alderman Paddy Bauler—Chicago just might be ready for reform.

AFSCME is a sponsor of In These Times. Sponsors have no role in editorial content.

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. He can be reached at davidmoberg@inthesetimes.com.

I think they're signing on because they think if they support Chuy and he loses, than Emanuel will stab them in the back--but his support only goes up to election day. He's no different than his buddy, Gov. Rauner. He wants this a Right-to-Work anti-union city. He's making the same promises as Chuy on trying to build a vibrant city for all with no money in the bank, but Emanuel's commercials attacking Chuy for making the same promises as Emanuel are hypocritical. Garcia really cares about a better city; Emanuel cares much more about satisfying his corporate buddies. We had no money before, but somehow Emanuel found it for his beloved corporate-dominated charter schools that are accountable to no one. Garcia has many ideas; he just hasn't been clear as to how to implement them. But groups like Reclaim Chicago, which is a growing grassroots movement in Chicago, along with Working Families, are responsible for the aldermanic runoffs in the city,as well as the mayor's race, and will be holding all elected officials feet to the fire for any empty promises.

Just remember, we could be in the black everywhere, all over this country, if we would just start progressive taxes all the way up to the top of the economic pyradmid--without loopholes--if everyone were not so damned scared of offending the very rich, who don't pay their fair share of taxes and are keeping us in the monetary hole.

Posted by sharsand on 2015-03-15 10:08:27

Good article but it misses much of the nuance of the politics. Issues? Where are they discussed? Who can vote and what do they vote on? The article talks in generalities that misses a lot of what is going on in the trenches.

The article totally fails to address what are the unions? Who makes those decisions in the unions? Hint not the rank and file. On the other side it fails to address what is the left? What does progressive mean in a one party city where more than two thirds of the candidates called themselves progressive.

I think we are in a period where there is a kind of long distance dance going on between left activists and labor officials. They need each other but each one finds the other a little too ugly or frightening.

From the outside, like in this article, it appears like a perfect match. From the inside, the perspective lovers find a lot of faults in their dance partner. And again, the rank and file whether union members or general public are not really part of the dance.

Posted by Myron Perlman on 2015-02-26 08:57:25

Speaking as a member of one of the unions in question, I concur with the anonymous union political organizer's explanation:"So most of the unions feel comfortable where they are. Why should they be bold? ‘We’ve got jobs. Our kids have jobs. Why should we have strong progressive democratic unionism?’ ”

This statement sums it up nicely, but it scratches the surface. Most of my colleagues watch Fox News and CNBC and will loudly proclaim for anyone who want to hear it that Obama is a secret Muslim socialist. They support union-busting GOP politicians in national elections; I'm guessing among those who bothered to vote in the last election, Rauner was the top choice for governor. The deep-seated racist, patriarchal, and reactionary culture of the trades and public safety unions (politely labeled 'conservative' by the article above) contributes to a rarefied political atmosphere. The majority of these men (and many of the women) likely see themselves as better than other laborers; that they bring home more pay and have better benefits only confirms their self-image. They are generally the retainers of the wealthy elite, and identify more with their rich masters (in deed if not in word) than with the Untermenschen of the lower echelons of the labor market.

So I'm not surprised that the highly paid unions would back Emanuel. Their bread is buttered, and he's holding the knife. They believe they're too valuable to get stabbed like everyone else.

It was wealthy trust-fund baby and a--hole capitalist Jay Gould who is credited with quipping: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Finally, one must consider the example of the Gospel character Judas Iscariot. In the minds of the contemporary established powers he served, Judas did a good job, and was handsomely paid for his efforts. These days, thirty pieces of silver must be worth a whole lot more.

Posted by Sam_Holloway on 2015-02-21 07:27:47

Did you not see what Bruce Rauner did recently ( denying fair share dues to unions). I agree the democrats have not been the best recently. However, the Democrats are not taking aim at collective bargaining right? Rahm Emanuel allies himself with investment bankers and corporate privatizers. He has close ties to Bruce Rauner in the investment banking business, who are always looking for cheaper labor. This is not about Republican vs Democrat. THIS IS ABOUT INCOME INEQUALITY! The union needs to realize that this is bigger than there personal interests. This is about socioeconomic well being for the middle and lower class people. There a great documentary on Netflix called Citizen Koch. I recommend everyone watch it. Bottom line is, Rahm who appears at first glance to be a Republican in disguise as a Democrat, is really neither, but rather a representative of Corporate America. And for any union to back him, is fundementally wrong. The unions should not ally them selves with the very policies and practices they swore to fight against.

Posted by nick on 2015-02-14 11:09:32

Did you not see what Bruce Rauner did recently ( denying fair share dues to unions). I agree the democrats have not been the best recently. However, the Democrats are not taking aim at collective bargaining right? Rahm Emanuel allies himself with investment bankers and corporate privatizers. He has close ties to Bruce Rauner in the investment banking business, who are always looking for cheaper labor. This is not about Republican vs Democrat. THIS IS ABOUT INCOME INEQUALITY! The union needs to realize that this is bigger than there personal interests. This is about socioeconomic well being for the middle and lower class people. There's a great documentary on Netflix called Citizen Koch. I recommend everyone watch it. Bottom line is, Rahm who appears at first glance to be a Republican in disguise as a Democrat, is really neither, but rather a representative of Corporate America. And for any union to back him, is fundementally wrong. The unions should not ally them selves with the very policies and practices they swore to fight against.

Posted by nick on 2015-02-14 11:08:59

"The city's deficit problem is rooted in analogous pension crisis." Huh? "rooted?" "analogous?" What do you mean by that? Are you simply saying that pensions were responsible for Chicago's deficits? Did you ever consider the fact that Illinois' regressive tax system has built-in structural deficits which means that it has never collected enough revenue to cover the costs of essential services. That's also true of Chicago in which TIF districts and other corporate tax give-aways exacerbate the deficit. Pensions at the city and state levels are not and never were the drivers of our deficits. At the state level, the so-called "unfunded (pension) liability" of $100 billion + is the money that the state owes to the five pensions systems. Our Illinois politicians used the pension systems as credit cards to avoid raising taxes. Richie Daley's and Rahm's administrations have similarly underfunded the city's pensions. The underfunding then becomes debt with interest. Blame your elected officials for the mess and not the pensions or the pensioners.

Posted by Karl on 2015-02-10 01:40:47

Rahm Emanuel, the free trade, neo-liberal, joke, why would any union support this man!I don't even think of him as a Democrat......

Posted by countykerry on 2015-02-09 23:00:29

I am a union electrician. I didn't vote for Rahm, and I will not again. He is terrible. The fact that the building trades are backing Emmanuel is ridiculous.

Also, he wanted to break the teacher's union pure and simple. That's why he sent his superintendent of schools packing when he could not get the job done...resigned my ass

Posted by 134 on 2015-02-07 21:53:23

Who wants more of this?

Founding members of ALEC,Americans for Prosperity and the John Birch Society Charles and David Koch are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-foc...

Posted by Richard Heckler on 2015-02-07 19:28:34

Emanuel is not a democrat but a member of the Democratic Leadership Council which is NOT the DNC. The democratic leadership council (DLC)was founded with Koch money. The DLC subscribes to the ALEC Doctrine.http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-foc...

The ALEC GOP right wing party is posing as the republicanparty which is fraudulent representation of the GOP . Their primary objectiveis to have America as a one party nation

Rather than serve the public interest, ALEC champions theagenda of corporations which are willing to pay for access to legislators andthe opportunity to write their very own legislation.

ALEC helps surrogates and lobbyists for corporations todraft and promote state bills which:

* wages war on women

• guts environmental laws

• create a regressive tax system

• eliminate workers’ rights = lower wages

• undermine universal and affordable health care

• privatize public education

• chip away at voting rights.

What Does ALEC Lobby For?

ALEC claims it “does not lobby in any state.” However, ALEC’s tactics and operationsare strikingly similar to those of registered lobbyists with corporate benefactors. Beyond distributing model legislation, ALEC provides its memberswith “issue alerts,” “talking points,” and “press release templates” expressing support or opposition to state legislation.

The organization tracks the status of its model bills in legislatures, and sends its employees to testify insupport of its bills in state houses across the country.http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-foc...

UndercuttingHealth Care Reform

After the passage of health care reform,ALEC’s top priority has been to challenge the law by encouraging members tointroduce bills that would prohibit the law’s insurance mandate. ALEC’s Healthand Human Services task force is led by representatives of PhRMA and Johnson& Johnson, and representatives of Bayer and GlaxoSmithKlein sit on ALEC’sboard.

The group’s model bill, the “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act,” hasbeen introduced in forty-four states, and ALEC even released a “StateLegislators Guide to Repealing ObamaCare” discussing a variety of modellegislation including bills to partially privatize Medicaid and SCHIP.

The legislative guide utilizes ideas and information from pro-corporate groups likethe Heritage Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, the James Madison Institute,the Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis and the NationalFederation of Independent Business.

Posted by Richard Heckler on 2015-02-07 19:28:22

Being In The Fraternity At The University I Attended In The 1980s Which Was Named After THE GREAT COMMONER, WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, Called "THE BRYAN BEARS"; I Can Unequivocally Say That THE GREAT COMMONER Would've EXCORIATED & CONDEMNED AS A "TAMMANY HALL-DEMOCRAT" CHICAGO'S MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL For Being A WORKER'S NIGHTMARE & A COVERT SUPPORTER OF THE CROWD THAT WOULD "PRESS DOWN UPON LABOR THIS CROWN OF THORNS.............THAT WOULD CRUCIFY MANKIND ON *************A CROSS OF GOLD************* " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !-Truthfully, Honestly, Sincerely Yours And Faithfully Recorded & Submitted,-Tony Cisneros-2011 Candidate For City Treasurer,City Of Chicago,State Of Illinois,United States Of America.

Posted by Tony Cisneros on 2015-02-03 14:48:20

Do you wonder why Republicans are ascendant? How can you win a war when your own side (Democrats, supposedly) is stabbing you in the back every chance they get?

Posted by mischling2nd on 2015-02-01 18:07:53

With Democrats like Rahm Emanuel, who needs Republicans?

Posted by Barney McClelland on 2015-02-01 05:55:30

.Brilliant! Unions supporting a proven anti-union candidate when there are others who are not anti-union. Why labor is still supporting the Democratic Party is a mystery, after being screwed over time and time again by the Dems. What is needed is a true workers' party, and I don't mean a Democratic Party sycophant like Working Families.

Posted by Susen Shapiro on 2015-01-29 00:12:13

CPS/CTU is the article's lead example of why Rahm is anti-union. CTU's Lewis is discussed later in the article and the article concludes "CTU has taken the lead" (in the opposition). So I don't think it's wrong to address CTU in-depth in response. The city's deficit problem is rooted in analogous pension crises. I raised the school closings as an example of why neither the unions or the author has a great deal of credibility here - they talk and as if there's no deficit problem, let alone one that has any relationship to public workers. Again, as I noted, the union-backed opposition to Rahm has been ridiculous in their proposals.

Posted by RustyJones on 2015-01-28 11:36:56

This article isn't about CPS. Or school closings.

Posted by Micah Uetricht on 2015-01-28 10:49:22

Good Lord, how does somebody write an entire article on CPS and the school closings and fail to even mention the words "deficit" or "census"? This is beyond dishonest - it's pernicious. Here are some facts:

African-Americans left Chicago in droves for the south suburbs or out of the metropolitan area completely, with corresponding drops in south and westside school enrollments.

CPS has a billion dollar budget deficit. One more time slowly for David Moberg: A. Billion. Dollar. Deficit. Or if Mr. Moberg isn't a word guy, $1,000,000,000.00.

Nonetheless, CTU went on strike in the middle of the Great Recession and while everyone else was losing jobs and money (save the 1%), teachers won a raise.

When the schools closed, CTU's Karen Lewis raised nightmare scenarios about harm to the "migrating" students - both physical and educational. Not only did the nightmare scenarios fail to materialize, the opposite happened: violence went down, and performance on average went up (possibly because CPS migrated most kids to similar or better performing schools and closed the other ones).

I'm not trying to argue that everything CPS and Rahm did was right - there's a LOT of insider dealing at CPS for example. But the simplistic, facts-be-damned reporting by the union echo chamber, like this article, is terrible. Mr. Moberg asks why union folks would support Rahm - maybe because the union-backed candidates have no solution for the budget crisis beyond proposing commuter taxes and the like that nobody thinks could get suburban *Democrat* support in the state legislature let alone GOP and that many think would be unconstitutional per the state constitution.